this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
301 points (97.8% liked)

World News

38831 readers
2525 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Literally nothing stops the government making "the voice" without changing the constitution. The only reason they want it in the constitution is so future governments can't change the function of the body.

The whole thing is an organised circus for political gain and dividing the population.

In the past, the government had a "voice" for the indigenous for like 10 years. Just bring it back, no constitutional change needed.

If you're going to try put an aboriginal rights group in the constitution, just make it basic human rights group with representation for everyone. Basic human rights that are severely lacking in Australia. Freedom of speech? We don't even have that.

[–] Skua@kbin.social 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Isn't the fact that it was taken away before a justification for enshrining it in the constitution?

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Like every other advisory body, it's the role of the elected government to manage (as it would continue to be if added to the constitution, they could just reduce it to one underfunded person instead of disbandening it, or create a new group).

Just vote for the party you want to represent you. The current government doesn't have a "voice" for the indigenous despite proposing this constitutional change.

It's like complaining about others possibly hampering your climate change efforts so you instead make none at all

[–] ABCDE@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who is preventing your speech?

[–] Custoslibera@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Let me guess, ‘woke green loonies who use cancel culture’.